I came across the release of this movie a few weeks ago but got to see it only now.
It is very good. Its treatment of the science of climate change is excellent.
Its treatment of the economics of cap and trade is not as great, though. [Indeed, its Australia section is actually incorrect.] It might have been best if the film was shortened by half to focus only on the science.
The science discussed in the movie sets in perspective the facts about the climate which have been evident to me for some time now, but are not seen in the same perspective by the vast majority of Western "policy makers".
I believe this is a typical Western trait, of total obedience to the "official" position. That's what explains Hitler. Or even the Soviet Union of Stalin. Hitler could never have succeeded in India. Someone would have pulled him down. Or shot him.
Not so in the West. Like disciplined "soldiers", Western policy makers have put on blinkers (like horses) and refuse to ask questions since their "orders" have been received.
I wait to see how long the West will be held to ransom by the IPCC.
Anyway, here's the link to the HD movie (you can switch off HD if you don't have broadband). Watching this is particularly important if you have so far refused to ask questions and have taken the "official" position as gospel.
I would encourage you to read up a lot after watching this movie. Be sure that you have the facts right. Then make up your own mind. Don't take my word on anything.
John Quiggin asked me to not correspond further. So I wished him best of luck and left off. Now he seems to have changed his mind. He has sent the following email to me in relation to my blog post on David Evans's article.
I find it odd that you send me the piece by Evans then say you don't care is he is a fraud or liar. In that respect, I'm compelled to say that Andrew Bolt is a bit more scrupulous. Here he is on the Galileo movement, whose anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are largely developed by Evans.
And here's the scoop on Evans
I don't expect you to apologise to me or even retract your endorsement of the Evans piece you sent to me, but I want you to be fully informed of what you are doing when you promote this poison.
First, do I care if someone is anti-Semitic? I'm quite happy to have even Hitler's views published. Not by me! But Mein Kampf should never be banned. Nor should anyone else's work. I'm AGAINST any ban on "hate speech". I've made that abundantly clear in the past on many occasions. I'm in favour of absolute freedom of expression – EXCEPT expression that directly threatens or expresses a plan of violence. But such plans of violence are not hate speech but acts of violence.
Second, I was NOT "promoting" David Evans. I was discussing science. I've never even heard of David Evans before in my life. And if the Sydney Morning Herald can publish his work, then shouldn't it first be accused by John of "promoting" anti-Semitism or whatever? Note that David Evans didn't write to me to publish his post on my blog! He wrote to a proper newspaper. I merely cited his article.
Third, in my blog post I was talking about DATA and EVIDENCE regarding the science of climate. It doesn't matter to human knowledge whether scientific information is published by an anti-Semite, anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, or by an anti-Hindu. Or anti-anything. I'm sure if you dig hard enough, you'll barely ever find any unbiased scientist. Or unbiased human. The key is to judge the science on its merit. The BALL must be played, not the PLAYER. John did not rebut any of the EVIDENCE that I discussed. He is once attacking the messenger.
But I'm curious anyway, now. I don't have time to read the links sent by John (at least not today, when its is time to retire for the night). But if anyone knows who is this evil monster known as David Evans, please let me know. It may seem strange, but I've now got a feeling that anyone attacked by John (like Donna Laframboise) is likely to be an outstanding human being.
For instance, there is NO JOURNALIST in the world who has investigated IPCC more thoroughly than Donna. She is the world's best investigative journalist. Or close to the world's best. Yet, John called her a liar (before he then retracted but called her analysis amateurish).
Given John's track record, it is quite possible that David Evans will turn out to be a brilliant nice man. I have no interest in David Evans, but given John's charges, I might as well find out more. If he is anti-Semitic it won't change his science (or my opinion of his science), but at least I'll know that the science is being served to me by an evil man.
I typed David Evans on google and found that he has published on ABC. That's pretty evil of them. Taxpayer funded, too. ABC.
But it is time to retire for the night!
Folks, I'll no longer be engaging with one "Professor" John Quiggin, member of Australia's Climate Change Authority. I'm posting my last correspondence with him. No more trying to show John the truth.
It has been a great disappointment to interact with John whose specialisation seems to be to INSULT everyone who points out his errors. He ALWAYS plays the person, NEVER the ball.
I fear for the future of mankind with with such people being appointed to senior roles by governments.
I truly fear for mankind's future. Not because of CO2 (which is a boon) but because of those who REFUSE to investigate the truth and yet hold high positions of influence.
EMAILS EARLIER TODAY
[My last email to John]
John, I was trying to help. But if you feel that everyone who points out the truth (and I really don't care about who Evans is) is some kind of a fraud or liar, then I'm done.
I clearly proved to you that Donna's observations are perfectly in line with a peer reviewed publication that assesses the use of peer reviewed journals by the 3rd Assessment. That was never my key issue anyway. Why do you think that's an issue? I don't care for [the] peer reviewed/ non-peer reviewed [criterion]. Only for the truth.
I have also read Donna's book now and it appears EVERYTHING in it is correct. I've verfied a few of her references. I strongly encourage you to verify for yourself how IPCC has been taking the world for a big ride.
I have repeatedly shown you that your multiplication by 100 is wrong. You haven't yet fixed it that fundamental error.
But given the nature of responses I keep getting from you, I'm no longer going to engage. I thought I was discussing with someone interested in the truth. I'm clearly mistaken.
I won't insult you, though, as you keep insulting others (and me). I wish you the best in your life and career.
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:39 PM, John Quiggin [Sanjeev: email ID removed] wrote:
Evans is a fraud – he's taken a stint doing some carbon accounting software and used it to present himself as an expert on climate science. You failed to respond to my observation that Laframboise claims about IPCC references were false, and as far as I can tell you still haven't read the reports you're denouncing. [Sanjeev: This is FALSE. I responded to John repeatedly!] You also ignored it when I pointed out that the article you cited, obviously sourced from the denialist blogosphere though you danced around the question, was a load of rubbish. [Sanjeev: This is FALSE. I fully accepted that ONE of the two articles I pointed out was later superseded by another article, but that didn't even remotely disprove the key point that his multiplication by 100 was WRONG.]If you want to believe silly conspiracy theories, go ahead. You're only confirming the observation that belief in the free market is highly correlated with conspiracist, anti-science views on everything from AIDS to the moon landingPlease don't waste my time any further. [Sanjeev: As if I have time enough to waste so that I can waste others' time! John has no idea of the hours I put in each day!]
On 03/08/2012, at 8:27 PM, Sanjeev Sabhlok <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
John, don't know if you are still interested in the science, but one Dr David M. W. Evans shows clearly that IPCC models have all grossly over-predicted temperatures, and predicted other effects which have not actualised. I suggest you re-consider your ill-placed faith in IPCC's reports. Pl. see: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/climate-change-science-is-a-load-of-hot-air-and-warmists-are-wrong-20120801-23fdv.html
I would appreciate being notified when you review the facts and change your mind.
The complete discussion
- I'm sorry Australia has such a disappointing person on its Climate Change Authority
- Strip Al Gore and IPCC of their Nobel Prize and give it to these people
- If Kevin Rudd continues to abuse those who ask questions, then Australia should bid goodbye to science
- It is not Donna Laframboise but Rajendra Pachauri who is a HUGE liar
- Now John Quiggin says that the world's top scientists are stupid! This is getting absurd.
- John Quiggin, IPCC's peer review process is riddled with holes. I now expect a detailed correction on your blog.
- John, thanks for withdrawing your allegation against Donna's integrity. Here's other stuff you and I should know.
- The total mess that is IPCC. This is very serious stuff. Please do read.
- John (Quiggin), Donna's methodology is totally transparent. Please PROVE she is a liar.
- Now John Quiggin says that Donna Laframboise is lying. I'll ask her about it.
- Second point for John Quiggin: to what extent does IPCC use peer reviewed literature?
- Response to John Quiggin re: longevity of "man-made" CO2 in the atmosphere
- Very important new study that rebuts IPCC generated panic
- Inviting input from readers re: climate change facts, to conduct a debate with John Quiggin
- John Quiggin, I suggest you review your estimate of the impact of Australian CO2 reductions
I've written to John Quiggin about this article published yesterday. I do hope he reads it, and also Donna's book. I expect him (if he is interested in the truth) to change his mind pretty soon now.
There's nothing new (for me) in this new article published yesterday, but for the sake of the "blind believers" and CO2-panicked people who may be reading this blog, let me publish highlights. Trust your panic will now ease. Basically, DATA trumps THEORY. That's the first rule of science. And data are clear: There is NO proof of run-away global warming induced by CO2.
Climate change science is a load of hot air and warmists are wrong
August 2, 2012, David Evans
2) IPCC MODELS: If the CO2 theory of global warming is right, the climate models should predict the climate fairly well. If the CO2 theory is wrong, because there is another, larger driver of the temperature, then the climate models will perform indifferently.
According to the latest data from mankind's best and latest instruments, from impeccable sources, the climate models are doing poorly.
The first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 1990 predicted air temperatures would increase by 0.30 degrees per decade, and by 0.20 degrees to 0.50 degrees per decade at the outside. But according to NASA satellites that measure almost the entire planet constantly, the trend since then has been 0.17 degrees per decade at most. The climate scientists ignore these awkward results and instead only quote temperatures from land thermometers, half of which are at airports where they are artificially warmed by jet engines and hot tarmac, while most of the rest are in warming micro-climates such as near air conditioner outlets, at sewage plants or in car parks. Obviously the data from these corrupted thermometers should not be used. [Sanjeev: btw, in my view Anthony Watts who first brought this to the world's notice, with THOUSANDS of photos, and has now provided detailed proof of the bias, should be given the Nobel Prize]
Ocean temperatures have only been measured properly since 2003 when the Argo program became operational. Some 3000 Argo buoys roam the oceans, measuring temperatures on each 10-day dive into the depths. Before Argo, we used sporadic sampling with buckets and diving darts along a few commercial shipping lanes. But these measurements have such massively high uncertainties as to be useless. Since Argo started, the ocean temperatures have been flat, no warming at all.
3) HOTSPOT: The assumed temperature amplification due to changes in humidity and clouds exhibits itself in all the models as prominent warming about 10 kilometres up over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmospheric warming pattern since the 1960s using weather balloons, released twice a day from 900 locations around the planet, many millions of them in total, and no such ''hot spot'' has been detected. This is direct observational proof that the amplification is missing.
4) OUTGOING RADIATION: The climate models predict that the outgoing radiation from the earth decreases in the weeks following a rise in the surface temperature, due to aggressive heat-trapping by extra humidity. But analysis of the outgoing radiation measured by NASA satellites for the last two decades shows the opposite occurs: the earth gives off more heat after the surface temperature rises. Again, this suggests that the amplification assumed in the models simply does not occur in reality.
5) GLOBAL PLATEAU IN TEMPERATURES (albeit at a high level): CO2 level continues to rise but the temperature plateau of the last 12 years persists.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee (elected by the Norwegian Parliament) made a HUGE mistake by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 to Al Gore and IPCC. It made its mistake because it had no Donna Laframboise to have independently scrutinised the entire literature and IPCC process.
But now we have Donna's book to educate us in great detail about the racket that is IPCC. And the sad fool that is Al Gore.
Strangely, we all (including me) have a natural tendency to give a wide berth to those who suggest they have something unique to tell us. Just because Donna is not a famous person I basically noted her work but then ignored it.
Only because of John Quiggin's capers and follies did I bother to download and read Donna's book. And now my eyes are wide open.
I now see the truth about "climate science" and IPCC in such clarity I can NEVER be deceived again by those who refer me to a so-called "consensus".
So it is clear that the Nobel Committee made a MAJOR mistake. They can make amends. It would be good if they can make amends and withdraw the prize from Al Gore and IPCC on grounds of FRAUD, but at least they should award a new Nobel prize to the following people/societies:
There are probably many more whom I've missed. I'll add further names as and when I come across them.
You are welcome to send in your nominations!
It is a great pity that the media has failed to investigate the truth behind the RACKET that is IPCC. But now we all know.
IPCC, your game is over.
While reading Donna’s book (which is undoubtedly the BEST piece of investigative journalism I've come across in my life), I discovered that the (then) Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, gave a pretty vicious kind of speech at the Lowy Institute on 7 November 2009. (Full speech here) in which he abused those who question climate "science".
Attempts … to present what is an overwhelming global scientific consensus as little more than an unfolding debate, with two sides evenly represented in a legitimate scientific argument, are nothing short of intellectually dishonest. They are a political attempt to subvert what is now a longstanding scientific consensus, an attempt to twist the agreed science.
I couldn’t believe that an Australia's prime minister could mouth such foul GARBAGE.
First, let me note that I had praised Kevin Rudd in my book, Breaking Free of Nehru, and so I clearly bear no ill will towards him (or anyone).
But look how arrogant this man had become after he held the position of PM for a while.
He not only purported to have discovered something known as “overwhelming global scientific consensus“ but he viciously attacked those who ask questions. People who ask questions are presumably "intellectually dishonest", "subversive", or mischievous: trying to "twist" SCIENCE! (It would be nice if Kevin Rudd understood the meaning of science, but that's perhaps expecting too much.)
I checked Kevin's training from Wikipedia. He has ZERO understanding of maths, physics, chemistry or biology. He couldn't possibly read, leave alone understand, a scientific paper.
And yet like a TOTALLY empty drum (which makes great noise), he had the temerity and impudence to abuse those who have the calibre to understand – and therefore to ASK QUESTIONS.
I would have had nothing to say on this subject, had Rudd said something on these lines:
"Look, I don't have the intellectual calibre to understand maths, physics, biology, or chemistry, and so I don't understand whether CO2 is a problem or not, but I have a role to act on advice I receive from the government's scientists. These folk are telling me that I must act, and so I will. I do not deny the privilege of understanding the science to those Australians who wish to understand this subject throughly. In fact, I encourage them to question the government's scientists so that they are completely satisfied that official scientists genuinely understand the subject. Truth can only emerge through ongoing debate. There is never a final truth in science."
But such a humble and decent comment is perhaps beyond Kevin. (Would he ever admit his mental incapacity to grasp science? Never!) His view MUST be obeyed else you are dishonest!
I have training in science. I was a National Science Talent Scholar (in biology) – a highly competitive award. I topped my university in the bachelor's degree in science. I took maths for the IAS exam, and did a doctorate with mathematical subjects, securing many global competitive scholarships on the way. That doesn't mean I know everything, but I have the confidence of being able to understand ANYTHING if I put my mind to it.
I have been STEEPED in science from my childhood and continue to read extensively about science, and ask questions. I consider myself a SCIENTIST: one of the many MILLIONS of trained scientists in this world.
I am also an independent thinker, and refuse to accept ANYTHING till I've understood it.
I represent (in this regard) perhaps the ACME of what the education system should aspire to achieve: an active and socially engaged human being and citizen who can think for himself.
And I pay my taxes.
And yet, this ARROGANT FOOL, who can't think for himself but must depend on others' advice, has the temerity to ABUSE those who think for themselves.
Kevin did NOT care to personally understand climate science, or ask hard questions about the science, or question how IPCC works (he should read Donna's book). Nor does he have the slightest clue about the scientific method.
And yet he has the gall to question the INTEGRITY of those who ask questions!
As if asking questions were a crime.
If Rudd has any genuine knowledge of climate science then let him answer my questions. Or ask his government scientist/s to address them. (His government's Climate Change Taskforce member John Quiggin has no clue about the science, though.)
To date, all I know is that there is NOT THE SLIGHTEST shred of evidence that CO2 is causing any problem to this planet. Indeed, I firmly believe (based on the science and data) that CO2 is GOOD for the planet.
Kevin Rudd must not arrogate to himself the mantle of the "saviour" this Earth for our children. Others like me, the citizens, are equally interested. We will act once we are convinced there is a problem.
The difference is that unlike Rudd, who is a mere follower, some of us are SCIENTISTS. We demand PROOF. ALL aspects to be clearly proven.
I trust he understands the concept evidence-based policy. Well, there's NO EVIDENCE of any problem – but only evidence that CO2 is good.
Science is all about questioning. It does NOT rely on authority.
If I (as a common scientist and proud citizen) can’t demand PROOF without the (now ex-) Prime Minister questioning the integrity of people like me, then there is something seriously wrong with the society.
Readers will recall that the moment I asked John Quiggin for proof (about reasons why he thinks he can multiply an annual estimate of temperature reduction by 100) he fled. He knows NOTHING about climate science but “believes” something blindly. Doesn't know what. But he believes. He is a follower. I have no use for followers and blind believers.
Finally, Mr Rudd, whatever else you do, please note that abusing people like me, who ask questions, will only frighten Australian students away from science. It should be obvious even to you (although you perhaps might need an IPCC to pompously announce that to you) that abusing SCIENTISTS (i.e. those who ask questions) is NOT the best way to promote the scientific attitude in Australia.
Remember what Richard Feynman said:
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts".
Challenge your experts to EXPLAIN climate science to the people and to answer ALL questions. Or expect these "experts" to be shunted aside.
We don't need "experts" whose only "expertise" is to quote the "IPCC" – but have no knowledge of the scientific issues and can't explain the science themselves. Sorry. You or your "experts" might believe in gods like IPCC. I don't.